Verscheidenheid maakt Verdraagzaamheid
Diversity creates Tolerance
Origins of American Religious Liberty in New Netherland
Charlotte Frijlink S1630628
MA North American Studies Eduard van de Bilt
Damian Pargas Leiden University 1-3-2018
Table of Contents
Introduction p. 5
Chapter 1: Dutch origins p. 17
Chapter 2: Commercialism p. 27
Chapter 3: Thoughts and ideas p. 34
Chapter 4: Diversity p. 43
Conclusion p. 53
Introduction
From 1624 to 1664 the Dutch owned a colony on the North American mainland, which was called New Netherland. The colony contained the region that we would today consider the Mid-Atlantic of the United States. The Dutch colony was a commercial frontier established by the Dutch West India Company with the main aim of trade in mind. By the eighteenth century the colony was populated by a wide variety of people from the Dutch Republic, England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and France. It was therefore the most culturally diverse region in colonial North America. The region has ever since been known for its diversity, and the religious pluralism and toleration that came with it. Several scholars even call it the birthplace of American religious liberty.1 Since the region was in Dutch hands during the formation of this diverse society, several historians and New York enthusiasts argue that the Dutch are in some form responsible for this outcome. The main question of this thesis therefore is: what was the Dutch role in the making of this American religious freedom according to historical debate?
The Dutch had a phrase to describe the Dutch society in the homeland at the time:
Verscheidenheid maakt verdraagzaamheid, diversity creates tolerance.2 The Netherlands was
well known for its liberal thoughts and open-mindedness in seventeenth-century Europe. Since trade was the main focus of the country, many different people flocked to Holland.3 This meant that a form of toleration was needed in order for all of these people to live together peacefully. As James C. Kennedy argues in his very recent book A Concise History
of the Netherlands, toleration was used by the Dutch in order to trade and deal within this
1 Evan Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 2.
2 George Smith, Religion and Trade in New Netherland: Dutch Origins and American Development (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973), 245.
3 Benjamin Kaplan, “’Dutch’ religious tolerance: celebration and revision,” in Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age, ed. Henk van Nierop and R. Po-Chia Hsia.
pluralistic society.4 But what did this toleration entail and where did it originate? Can we
speak of religious toleration, demanding religious freedom? When the Dutch founded their colony in the New World, on the North-American mainland, did they bring this toleration with them? In the discussion of religion in the colony of New Netherland questions such as these arise. In order to find the answers to these questions this thesis will outline the historical debate on the Dutch influence on American religious liberty through the colony of New Netherland. Within this analysis, attention will be given to the authors’ opinions on religious toleration. How do they define this toleration, and how do they think it originated? Thereby, this thesis tries to contribute to the wider debate on the origins of religious toleration.
The methodology for this thesis is historiographical, which entails discussing the most important written contributions made by historians to the debate on this particular topic. While the debate has a long history and transpires the entire last century, the contributions will be discussed thematically rather than chronologically. Every chapter of this thesis discusses another theme, another aspect to be considered when defining toleration and looking at the Dutch influence on American religious liberty. The first chapter will look at Dutch origins of toleration in the Netherlands itself. The second will discuss the commercial aim of New Netherland and the consequences this had for religion in the colony. Third on the list is the influence of enlightenment thinking on tolerance ideas and the way these ideas came to America. Finally we will consider the diversity that the Dutch created in North America as a form of Dutch influence on religious liberty. In order to clarify the debate, it is of
importance to start out with a source that argues a general conception: namely the thought that since the Dutch were very tolerant towards different religions, their colony must have been also, and thereby it must have influenced America with their religious liberty. The source that will be used to defend this conception is the book Holland, the Birthplace of American
4 James C. Kennedy, A Concise History of the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Promotheus, 2017),
Political, Civic and Religious Liberty written by Henry Albert Willem van Coenen Torchiana
in 1915.
Not all scholars agree with this idyllic assessment of Dutch influence on American religious history. Many argue against this theory and think it is a general misconception that the Dutch colony of New Netherland was tolerant towards different religions. Frederick Zwierlein’s contributions to the debate are well known, not only because they are some of the earliest, written in 1910 and 1918, but also because he strongly argues that the colony
practiced a repressive religious policy.5 Two of his works will therefore be discussed
thoroughly, especially since they influenced many of the contributions to the debate: his book written in 1910, called Religion in New Netherland, 1623-1644 and his article that was published in the The Catholic Historical Review in 1918, named “New Netherland
Intolerance”. Jaap Jacobs, writing in 2005, agrees that New Netherland was not religiously tolerant. He clearly states his opinions on these matters in his book New Netherland: A Dutch
Colony in Seventeenth Century America, which will likewise be discussed as an argument
against the general conception.
The rest of the scholars whose work will be discussed are of the opinion that even though the colony was not completely tolerant towards religion, the Dutch still influenced American religious liberty. However, the way in which the Dutch had an influence differs in all of their opinions. The first theme that will be discussed within these opinions is
commercialism. In his book Religion and Trade in New Netherland: Dutch Origins and
American Development of 1973, George Smith argues that mercantilism dominated over
religion in the colony and that thereby a religious pluralism survived and influenced the later United States. Paul Finkelman, writing in 2012, is of the same opinion that the colony was based on trade and therefore a slighter form of toleration naturally grew out of the,
5 Frederick Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, 1623-1644 (New York: Da Capo Press,
particularly economic, circumstances. His article that will be discussed here, “The Roots of Religious Freedom in Early America: Religious Toleration and Religious Diversity in New Netherland and Colonial New York,” was published in the Nanzan Review of American
Studies.
Russell Shorto wrote a big contribution and game changer to the debate in 2004. His book An Island at the Center of the World sparked an interest for the Dutch history of New York among many scholars and laity alike. When considering the Dutch influence on
American religious liberty, he mainly focuses on the Dutch tolerance ideas that were brought to the colony by figures such as Adriaen van der Donck, ideas that influenced the Flushing Remonstrance. He thereby shifted the focus of the debate towards the Dutch enlightenment thoughts on toleration and away from the actual toleration in the colony. Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs published an article in the Church History in 2010, named “Dutch Contributions to Religious Toleration,” in which he argues against the statements made by Shorto. He does stick to the theme of Dutch thoughts and ideas as the influence on America. However, he claims it was John Locke who was influenced by Dutch enlightenment ideas and brought these over to the New World.
In his book New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty (2012), Evan Haefeli criticizes Bangs’s opinions and steers back towards the ideas of Jacobs, who said the colony had no influence on American religious liberty. He approaches the topic of Dutch toleration from an Atlantic world history view. When discussing New Netherland he mainly focuses on the diversity of the peoples in the region and discards the direct Dutch influence. According to him the Dutch influence was indirect, namely by bringing diversity to the Mid-Atlantic area. Willem Frijhoff, the last contributor to the debate discussed here, published an article in 2013 called “Religion and Toleration in Old and New Netherland.” In this article Frijhoff also approaches the concept of toleration from an Atlantic perspective.
However, his conclusion concerning Dutch influence on religious liberty in America differs slightly from Haefeli’s. He states that true toleration only came about after the English took over the colony in 1664.
Ultimately, this thesis will argue that even though the colony of New Netherland was not very tolerant in its rule, Dutch toleration ideas that originated in the province of Holland were still applied in order to deal with the colony’s diversity. It was this diversity that the Dutch created in the region which allowed a pluralist religious area to develop that would eventually produce American religious liberty.
Throughout this thesis several terms will occur frequently. Therefore the definitions of the most important terms will be specified here. First and foremost, the term toleration needs to be clarified. Toleration is generally understood as a kind of open-mindedness in relation to (people with) differing opinions, attitudes and beliefs. The term tolerance seems very similar and is therefore often used interchangeably with the term toleration. However, these two terms need to be differentiated. Tolerance is an attitude, the willingness to admit that
contradictory viewpoints are valid. Toleration is a social or political practice, in which forms of dissent are allowed.6 Often toleration entails a majority and minorities, in which the
majority tolerates and the minorities are tolerated. Acts of toleration do not always entail actual tolerance, for example when one is told to tolerate certain behavior even though one does not want to. Toleration can be divided into different forms, of which two need to be defined: public toleration and private toleration. A clear way to explain the difference
between these two terms is through the example of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that was created by Bill Clinton in 1993. Before this policy was legislated, American citizens who were homosexual, bisexual, or of any other sexual preference than straight, were not allowed to serve in the United States army. Clinton’s policy allowed these banned citizens into the
6 Andrew R. Murphy, “Tolerance, Toleration, and the Liberal Tradition,” Polity 29, no. 4
Vmilitary by prohibiting people to ask or tell about their homo- or bisexual preferences.7 This
is a perfect example of private toleration, in which the majority allows the minority to have its own sexual preferences, as long as they are not discussed publicly. Today sexual preferences are no longer considered an issue to enter the United States armed forces, which means that homo- and bisexuals can now publicly express their sexual preference. Thereby the private toleration has turned into public toleration. The majority in the U.S. military publicly tolerates the minority.
Because tolerance is difficult to measure, within this thesis the focus will mainly be on religious toleration (even though a few of the historians discussed here talk about tolerance and its connotations). Religious toleration is the allowance of several forms of organized dissent from the legally established or socially dominant church.8 What makes religious
toleration quite complex is that when one religious group is dominant, this group does not necessarily have to be the majority. In some cases the dominant religious group solely allows the tolerated religious groups to practice their beliefs in private, which means that these groups are allowed to believe, but not to express these beliefs publicly. This is therefore called the freedom to believe, which is a form of private toleration. In other cases the
minorities are free to express their beliefs and worship their gods/spirits in the public domain. This is called the freedom to worship and it is a form of public toleration. The balance
between these two forms of religious toleration differs in every situation, depending on the local factors and influences. Toleration can therefore be seen as a dynamic concept that adapts to its surroundings and does not appear in solely one form or shape. One example of a form of practicing toleration is “connivance,” another term that needs defining. Connivance is a practice that was common in Holland during the seventeenth century and it is therefore
7 Steve Estes, “Ask and Tell: Gay Veterans, Identity, and Oral History on a Civil Rights
Frontier,” The Oral History Review 32, no. 2 (2005): 21.
important to understand for this research. The best way to describe this term is as “turning a blind eye.” The tolerating group in this situation is aware of the wrongdoings of other groups, but chooses to ignore them. Because of this connivance, many differing religious groups were able to live in the Netherlands together peacefully.
Before diving into the debate at hand, a short historical overview of the Dutch colony of New Netherland will be given as a backdrop to the historical debate. It all starts in 1609, when Henry Hudson is sent by the VOC, the Dutch East India Company, to find a northeast passage to the Orient.9 After realizing he would not find a way through the ice of the north pole, he decides to reroute towards the west in the hope of finding a passageway through the American mainland. Hudson and his men sail into the river that now bears his name, thinking it will bring them to the Orient. After a while the river narrows down and the men realize it is not the passageway they were looking for, so they give up and return back to Europe. Hudson thinks of his mission as failed, but on his return does tell all about the rich landscape he and his crew encountered. 10 The Dutch are intrigued by the land he has found and in 1623 colonists start making their way over to, what we would now call, the New York Bay.11
The newly founded Dutch West India Company took upon itself the role of controlling this new colony. Soon the colony started growing, a public administration was established and the first director was named in 1625: Willem Verhulst. He started the building of the fort New Amsterdam, but was replaced by a new director within a year. His successor, Peter Minuit, was the director from 1626 to 1632. Minuit is well known for buying the Manhattan Island from the local natives for the meagre amount of 60 guilders. After a five-year interlude under the directorship of Wouter van Twiller, it was Willem Kieft who started the urbanization of
9 Barbara van der Zee, A Sweet and Alien Land: the Story of Dutch New York (Viking Press,
1978), 7.
10 Firth Haring Fabend, New Netherland in a Nutshell: A Concise History of the Dutch Colony in North America (Albany, NY: New Netherland Institute, 2012), 33.
11 Russell Shorto and Geert Mak, 1609 De vergeten geschiedenis van Hudson, Amsterdam en New York (Amsterdam: Stichting Henry Hudson 400, 2009), 51.
New Amsterdam in 1638. He also brought order to the administration and society in general. Unfortunately, he started two wars with local natives in 1643 and 1644 that made his rule less popular. The Dutch colonists barely survived Kieft’s wars. The WIC heard of the situation and sent over a new governor to replace Kieft. It is this man who will be of a lot of interest to us when discussing religion in New Netherland, namely Peter Stuyvesant.12
The official religion in the colony was that of the Dutch reformed church, a Calvinist-Protestant version of the Christian faith. Among the colonists who came to the new land were also pastors, who wanted to spread their beliefs among the heathens in the area. However, the native people they encountered spoke another language and were so estranged from the colonists that they soon decided not to try to convert them.13 Until the arrival of Stuyvesant a policy of connivance, “turning a blind eye,” had been in order in the colony. This was the policy of the Dutch in the homeland at the time, but Peter Stuyvesant had different ideas for the colony. Since he was a pastor’s son, he was deeply attached to the Dutch Reformed Church. Stuyvesant came to be known as an authoritarian ruler, who wanted to create a religiously uniform society in New Netherland. His rule was often challenged. Three religious groups formed the biggest challenges, namely the Lutherans, the Jews and the Quakers.14
After the Thirty Years’ War ended in Europe, many Lutherans flocked to the Dutch colony in America. Since their beliefs only differed from the Dutch Reformed Church slightly, Stuyvesant hoped he could win them over to the Reformed community. The Lutherans did not want to give up their own religion and wanted to be able to practice their own faith publicly.
12 Willem Frijhoff and Jaap Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland and thereafter
(1609-1780s).” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations, 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen and Giles Scott-Smith (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 38-42.
13 Fred van Lieburg, “The Dutch and their Religion.” in Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations, 1609-2009, ed. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen and Giles Scott-Smith
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 156.
14 Joyce D. Goodfriend, “Practicing Toleration in Dutch New Netherland,” in The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America, ed. Chris Beneke and
Stuyvesant could not assail them for having different beliefs, since he had to adhere to the Union of Utrecht of 1579 that stated the principle of liberty of conscience. When the
Lutherans applied to call a minister from Holland in 1653, he made sure it was denied by the States-General in Holland. As a result, the Lutherans started assembling secretly to practice their faith. Stuyvesant found out about the secret assemblies and together with his council issued an ordinance in 1656 that banned conventicles altogether.15
The Lutheran community did not give up easily. After petitioning for an exception and being denied once again, they decided to bring over a reverend themselves; Johannes
Goetwater. Stuyvesant obviously was not pleased with the situation and did everything to make sure that the Staten-General forbade Goetwater to preach in the colony. With all these actions, Stuyvesant effectively suppressed the Lutheran congregation in his colony. Even though some Lutherans decided to come to the Reformed Church for public services, a Lutheran community continued to exist in the colony. Their common cause might even have brought them closer together.16
The second religious group to challenge Stuyvesant was the Jewish. In 1654 the Dutch lost their hold over Brazil and twenty-three Jews fled the former colony and made their way to New Netherland.17 Stuyvesant was obviously not too pleased with the arrival of this group; he saw them as a threat to his religiously uniform society. He requested the WIC directors to be allowed to deport the Jews from his colony, calling them “a deceitful race” that could only do the colony harm.18 Contrastingly, Portuguese Jews were accepted members of the
community in Amsterdam at the time, who even had quite some political influence. So the WIC directors were not persuaded by Stuyvesant’s request, since they wanted to keep the
15 Goodfriend, “Practicing Toleration in Dutch New Netherland,” 101-102. 16 Ibid., 103.
17 Russell Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony that Shaped America (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 331.
local Jews content. On top of that, they argued that the colony was in need of settlers, so the Jews were welcome to stay.19
Stuyvesant, who was not satisfied with the response of the company directors, did not make the lives of the Jews in the colony easy. He taxed them more than he did other residents; he banned them from joining the colony’s militia; and he tried to keep them from settling by not allowing them to buy real estate. The Jews were not content with this situation in which they paid more than others, but had fewer rights. One of these Jews, Asser Levy, therefore applied for “burgherschap” (official citizenship) in 1657.20 Stuyvesant denied the request, thereby clearly showing his intent to keep the Jews out of the community. In June of 1656 he wrote a letter to the directors in Amsterdam stating that the Jews had on multiple occasions petitioned for the right of public worship, but he did not grant them this wish. Eventually, most Jews left the colony before the British takeover in 1664. They either moved on to Amsterdam or other places that were interesting trading places for them, so Stuyvesant’s problem solved itself.21
Besides the Lutherans and the Jews, another group challenged Stuyvesant’s rule, namely the Quakers. In August 1657 a ship without a flag or salute sailed into the Dutch harbor in New Netherland, which was highly uncommon at the time. The ship appeared to be a Quaker ship. Not much later two women were found in the street “shaking” and screaming, preaching their faith. After the women sat in prison for eight days, Stuyvesant had them put on a ship straight to Rhode Island, an English colony where more Quakers lived. The Quakers did not give up, since they wanted to spread their message. An example of this is Robert Hodgson, who came to Long Island to spread his beliefs. He soon was brought to New Amsterdam to await judgment, where he was given the choice to either pay a 100 guilders
19 Goodfriend, “Practicing Toleration in Dutch New Netherland,” 104-106.
20 John Webb Pratt, Religion, Politics, and Diversity: the Church-State Theme in New York History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), 63.
fine or to work at the wheelbarrow. He refused to do either, which resulted in Stuyvesant summoning Hodgson to be whipped multiple times. Stuyvesant’s message was clear; he did not want anything or anyone challenging his religiously uniform society.22
However, Quakers continued to assemble on Long Island and Stuyvesant continued to punish them for it. In a town called Flushing, “Vlissingen,” a group of Calvinists gathered and decided to complain about the treatment of their Quaker neighbors. They put together a petition, which is famously known as the Flushing Remonstrance. In this document, they called upon the Dutch law and liberty of conscience. The featured authors in this thesis discuss the nature of this document more thoroughly. Stuyvesant was furious and punished the men who put together the petition. He soon sent out a proclamation for a day of prayer on which he denounced the “heresy” that were the Quakers, telling the residents that he would not accept them in his colony. In May 1663, after another incident in which he sent away a Quaker, he enacted a new ordinance in which he prohibited captains from bringing into the colony any “Vagabonds, Quakers, or other fugitives” on their boats.23 The directors of the WIC were not pleased with Stuyvesant’s actions towards the Quakers and told him to “allow every one to have his own belief, as long as he behaves quietly and legally, gives no offense to his neighbors and does not oppose the government.”24 Hereby the directors allowed the Quakers to live and practice their beliefs in the colony, so Stuyvesant’s mission to suppress Quakers in New Netherland failed.25
Meanwhile, the Dutch had been at war with England over supremacy in trade and shipping for a decade. In 1664 the English king gave the order to take over the Dutch colony of New Netherland. When their ships sailed into the Manhattan harbor, the Englishmen found
22 Goodfriend, “Practicing Toleration in Dutch New Netherland,” 112-114. 23 Ibid., 116.
24 Ibid.
25 Chris Beneke and Christopher S. Grenda. The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America, ed. Chris Beneke and Christopher S. Grenda (University of
New Amsterdam almost defenseless and they took over the colony quickly. When the English took over they installed their own church. However, when they seized the colony it was so ethnically and religiously diverse that they decided not to impose the English church on the local colonists. Hereby the diverse society in the area continued to exist and the religious diversity was carried on under the English rule.26 Whether religious toleration made its way into the future United States, and whether this toleration existed at all, has all been discussed by the previously mentioned scholars and will be the topic of the rest of this thesis.
Chapter 1: Dutch origins
In the scholarly works about its history, The Netherlands has generally been accepted as the most liberal country in seventeenth-century Europe.27 Henry Albert Willem van Coenen Torchiana was most definitely of this opinion. This can be seen in the book he wrote in 1915, called Holland, the Birthplace of American Political, Civic and Religious Liberty. As the title of his book suggests, Torchiana argues that Holland laid all the foundations for liberty in America. He claims that the United States owe a lot to the Netherlands, since it defended the principles that characterize America today.28 He calls the Netherlands the home and refuge of religious liberty. Holland was the first country in the western world that founded religious toleration. He sees this religious toleration as one of the main foundations of “American Idea,” if not the greatest.29 Before the United States was formed, all the colonies shared some
political ideas. Among these ideas religious liberty was one of the most important, says Torchiana. According to him there was only one nation in the western world at that time that embodied those ideas. This was unmistakably the Republic of the Netherlands, the home of religious freedom and toleration. In their struggle with Spain the Dutch had shown their persistence by cutting the dykes and flooding the lowlands, showing that they would not give up their liberty for anything. Torchiana goes even further than religion when it comes to the Dutch influence on America. He is of the opinion that the United States has also learned from Holland’s government structure, freedom of speech, charities, prison systems, land
distribution and law.30
So far we have seen that Torchiana is of the strong opinion that the Netherlands influenced America on multiple aspects, including religious liberty. But now the question
27 Frijhoff and Jacobs, “The Dutch, New Netherland and thereafter,” 34.
28 Henry Albert Willem van Coenen Torchiana, Holland, the Birthplace of American Political, Civic and Religious Liberty (Chicago: James H. Rook Company Publishers, 1915), X-XI. 29 Ibid., 35-57.
arises: how did this Dutch influence on America come about? According to Torchiana there are three ways in which the Dutch influence got to America. First of all, he is of the opinion that the Netherlands influenced the rest of Northern Europe with its culture and progress prior to colonization. Secondly, English soldiers who were stationed in Holland brought back the ideas to England and later to America. Third and mostly, it was the direct contact with the Dutch enlightened ideas of the American colonies’ founders. The prevalent example of this last form of influence is the story of the Pilgrims who resided in Holland for twelve years before making their way to America. The Pilgrims had fled to Holland because of their persecution in England and they ended up staying in Leiden for most of the time. “Holland was the Mecca of the Pilgrims’ desires,” says Torchiana. They saw the religious liberty and civic freedom and implemented these Dutch customs when they made it to the colonies. Of course, the fifty years’ stay of the Dutch in New Netherland was also of influence. This direct contact of the Dutch with the colonies naturally shaped American ideas, states Torchiana.31 He gives one example of Dutch influence on New York, the former New Netherland. New York was the first state in 1777 to repeal all laws that could hold back any denominations or ministers in practicing their beliefs, thereby setting the example for all the other states to follow. He concludes by saying that through the Pilgrims, through New Amsterdam, “from these and many other sources came the great force that made Holland the real Mother Country of the United States.”32
Torchiana’s viewpoint within the debate is clear: the Dutch had a major influence on America, including on its religious liberty. His viewpoint is an elaborate argument focused on the general conception that Holland was the most tolerant nation in Europe in the seventeenth century. He does not offer an explanation or any proof for this conception; he assumes its truth. He likewise does not offer a definition for religious toleration. Apart from legislation,
31 Torchiana, Holland, the Birthplace, 5-42. 32 Ibid., 16-45.
e.g. the example of a piece of New York legislation in 1777, Torchiana does not offer much proof for any of his arguments. Because he does not make use of annotation or a bibliography in this book, unfortunately his statements are not very reliable. It is also hard to figure out Torchiana’s intentions in writing this book, since there is very little known about him. What we do know is that he worked for the consulate general of the Netherlands in San Francisco.33 His work for a Dutch consulate in the United States could be a reason for him wanting to prove the Dutch influence on the country. This is, however, mere speculation: no conclusions on the reasons underlying his perspective on religious history can be drawn. Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion of the debate on the Dutch influence on American religious liberty, Torchiana offers an interesting defense of the argument that this religious liberty has Dutch origins. To continue the discussion, we will now look at two scholars who disagree with this statement. Both Frederick Zwierlein and Jaap Jacobs argue the opposite from Torchiana: in their work, they refer to colonial policies of religious intolerance.
Frederick Zwierlein, a professor of church history in Rochester, N.Y., published his dissertation from the University of Louvain in 1910. This elaborate work is named Religion in
New Netherland; A History of the Religious Conditions in the Province of New Netherland, 1623-1664. Zwierlein’s main aim with this dissertation is to break with the general conception
created by nineteenth-century historians that the Netherlands was very tolerant towards religion and therefore its colony was too.34 In order to undermine this conception, Zwierlein starts his book with a chapter on “The Dutch Background of the Religious History of the Province of New Netherland.” In this chapter he tries to prove that the Dutch Republic actually was not that tolerant at all. After stating this point he dives into a description of the place of the church in New Netherland and he discusses the colony’s religious history thoroughly. This discussion includes three separate chapters on Peter Stuyvesant’s clashes
33 Torchiana, Holland, the Birthplace, preface. 34 Smith, Religion and Trade in New Netherland, 17.
with the Lutherans, Quakers and Jews. His article, “New Netherland Intolerance,” was published in The Catholic Historical Review eight years later. The article is in essence a shortened version of this book, a summary in which he clearly states his arguments again and debunks the reviews of his critics.
According to Zwierlein, historians have often made mistakes when writing on the foundations of the State of New York. They did so because of the mistaken conception that the Netherlands was the home of religious liberty in the seventeenth century and that its colony took over these traits.35 In order to understand the religious development of the colony, he says it is important to understand the religious conditions in its mother country, especially since the church in the colony of New Netherland was identical to that of the Netherlands.36 In his opinion the Netherlands did not have religious liberty at all. He substantiates this argument by showing oppressive religious ordinances against Catholics that were adopted starting in 1581 and lasting through the period of Dutch authority in New Netherland.37 The Protestant minority that ruled was intolerant and oppressive, says Zwierlein. The Catholics did not enjoy any of the toleration in Holland that was given to Jews, Muslims and other “sects” in Amsterdam.38 He makes a fair point that the Dutch were not tolerant towards
Catholics during the time that they were trying to shake of the Spanish yoke and the Protestants took over control. However, as Zwierlein says himself, there were still many different groups and sects living together. They especially lived in the provinces of Holland and Zeeland, where they were tolerated because of the commercialism in the bigger cities.
After concluding that the Dutch did not have religious liberty at home, Zwierlein argues that “consequently there is no temptation to jump to the conclusion that the Dutch in
35 Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, v-vi. 36 Ibid., 9.
37 Zwierlein, “New Netherland Intolerance,” 187-188. 38 Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, 23-24.
New Netherland granted it to every one,”39 He then shows a list of oppressive colonial
religious legislation, just like he did to prove his point about the Dutch intolerance. These laws were based on the charter of 1640 that allowed only the Reformed religion in the colony of New Netherland. He hereby wants to show that the spirit of intolerance was latently
apparent in the colony as well as in the mother country.40 Further substantiating his argument, he discusses thoroughly the directorship of Peter Stuyvesant and his willingness to suppress other forms of religion besides that of the Dutch Reformed Church. By discussing in three chapters Stuyvesant’s fight against the Lutherans, Quakers and Jews, he tries to prove the existence of a consistent religious policy of repression. He says this policy was fostered by the provincial government and local clergy, and backed by the directors of the WIC and the Dutch Reformed Church.41 He then concludes his work with the statement that this policy of
religious repression that was apparent in the colony of New Netherland was not unique to this colony, or to Stuyvesant. According to him, the colony’s policy was similar to the repressive policy in the Netherlands itself.42
Unfortunately, we have little knowledge on the background of Frederick Zwierlein, so it is once again hard to understand why he tried to debunk the general conception of Dutch toleration. One reason to consider is his religious background, which was coined in The
Historical Review of October 1910: “Mr. Zwierlein as a Roman Catholic may be suspected of
some bias; but his conclusions are based on a very large amount of documentary material.”43 Zwierlein quotes this positive criticism in his article, thereby debunking that his religious background influences his argument. Nonetheless, this Catholic influence could provide reasoning for him wanting to debunk the general conception of Dutch toleration.
39 Zwierlein, “New Netherland Intolerance,” 190. 40 Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland, 1. 41 Ibid., 5-7.
42 Zwierlein, “New Netherland Intolerance,” 216.
43 "Short Notices," The English Historical Review 25 (1910): 821.
Many scholars are aware of Zwierlein’s contributions to the debate and have used his work as an example or have argued against him. This will be seen when we discuss these scholars further on. Zwierlein’s arguments and statements are substantiated; he makes a convincing argument. Throughout his elaborate work, he uses his sources well and all of his chapters add up to his final aim: to prove that the Netherlands was not as tolerant as usually thought and neither was its colony. However, when arguing that the Netherlands did was biased towards Catholics, he ignores the toleration that is enjoyed by many different groups of foreigners, religions and sects in the Dutch Republic. Most of these were to be found in the provinces of Holland and Zeeland, since that is where the bigger cities were. However, that does not mean this religious liberty was not influential. It were these provinces that were most visited by foreigners and where the VOC and WIC were stationed, which led the journeys to foreign colonies and thereby influenced their cultures. By focusing solely on the Dutch origins of the religious aspects of the history of New Netherland, Zwierlein overlooks the main reasons why the Dutch went to America: the commercial reasons—reasons that
according to other scholars explain Dutch toleration. More than one aspect is in play when it comes to the Dutch influence on America, but Zwierlein fails to look at this bigger picture. Further on in this thesis these aspects of commercialism, the intellectual environment, and diversity will be discussed to prove that they all work together influencing America with Dutch traits of religious liberty.
For now, because its arguments have an impact on Zwierlein’s perspective, we will take a look at Jaap Jacobs’s New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth Century
America. This book describes the development of New Netherland from the trading post that
it started out to be, into the settlement colony it became later on. Jacobs’s central question is how and to what extent culture was transplanted from the Dutch Republic to New Netherland
and what factors were of influence on the colonial culture.44 When it comes to ecclesiastical
matters, he states that the control over the church in New Netherland was located in
Amsterdam. In the colony the church organization was similar to that in the Dutch Republic. The church in the mother country was the example. The directors of the WIC did keep in mind that the colony was a young and delicate society, in which religious uniformity needed to be preserved. Conversely, they were convinced that a form of religious freedom was needed in order for the colony to flourish. This is where Jacobs makes a distinction between two forms of freedom; namely the freedom of conscience and the freedom to worship. He claims that the directors of the WIC, the director general and the ministers based their policy towards the Lutherans, Quakers and Jews on the idea that freedom of conscience was sacred. This meant that they were allowed to worship privately, but did not enjoy the freedom of public worship since that would endanger the society.45 The authorities had to uphold this freedom of conscience, as long as it did not form any problems in society. This custom of connivance was well known in Amsterdam and the directors were of the opinion that it was suited for the colony as well, says Jacobs. Even though the edict on the conventicles was still in force, the directors told Stuyvesant and his ministers that the increase of population was more important.46 However, Stuyvesant and his ministers did not take this advice gladly. Jacobs argues that it was their tough attitude that stood in the way of toleration in New
Netherland.47 It was the tolerant views of the directors in Amsterdam that allowed the Jews to stay and that upheld the connivance, so there is no evidence of exceptional tolerance in the
44 Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth Century America (Leiden:
Brill, 2005), 4.
45 Ibid., 477-479. 46 Ibid., 310. 47 Ibid., 325.
colony itself, concludes Jacobs. He thereby argues that the Dutch colony of New Netherland had little place in the history of American religious liberty.48
Overall, Jacobs’s book is a good overview of the history of the New Netherland colony. However, as Christine Kooi argues in her 2006 review of the book, this history is more descriptive than it is analytical. Another valid point she makes is that Jacobs does not engage in any debates with other scholars who have written on the topic. He does not refer to any other literature and he does not offer a historiographical background.49 Without this scholarly context it is difficult to assess his aims and his willingness to contribute to the debates about New Netherland history and its impact. When it comes to his discussion of religious liberty in the colony, however, his distinction between freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is very insightful. The understanding of what was accepted privately in contrast to what was accepted publicly shows a distinction that was well known by the Dutch at the time, but might be overlooked by historians today. Nonetheless, his conclusion that the director general and his ministers stood in the way of toleration in the colony and that it were only the directors of the WIC who were tolerant and that as a result the Dutch had no
influence on American religious liberty, is not very convincing. Even though the policy of the authorities in New Netherland were not always tolerant, the fact that their superiors told them to show connivance tells us something about the Dutch toleration ideas. This connivance was mainly motivated by the need for the colony to flourish, the need for commercial success. The directors also had to keep the Jewish community in Amsterdam content, a community that was very influential. This once again shows that there are multiple causes in action when it comes to the Dutch ideas on toleration and their influence on America.
48 Haefeli, New Netherland and the Dutch Origins, 2-4.
49 Christine Kooi, review of New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth Century America, by Jaap Jacobs, The Sixteenth Century Journal 37 (2006): 1100.
Throughout this chapter we have seen three different views by scholars on the role of the Dutch in the making of American religious liberty. All three of these scholars look at the Dutch origins of religious toleration and all three come up with different conclusions. As has been seen, Torchiana defended the general conception that the Netherlands was the most liberal country in seventeenth-century Europe. He consequently argued optimistically that New Netherland took over these traits and that Holland thereby influenced America. However, Torchiana’s work is not very reliable because of its lack of scholarly evidence. Zwierlein debunked the general conception completely by stating that the Netherlands was not as tolerant as in usually thought and therefore its colony was not either. Zwierlein does not define what he understands as toleration, but it is clear that he focuses too much on repressive legislation. He barely looks at the toleration that was apparent in Holland. He also shows that the policy in New Netherland was not tolerant. Zwierlein’s argument solely focuses on the Dutch origins of intolerance and the policy of the authorities in the colony. He does not focus on any other forms of influence on American religious toleration. Jacobs also claims that the mother country was the example for the church in New Netherland, but he does not argue as strongly as Zwierlein that the Dutch Republic was not tolerant at all. According to him, there was a form of toleration in Holland, but it was limited to the freedom of conscience. The freedom to worship was not widespread in Holland, let alone in New Netherland. He says that it was the tough rule of the director general and his ministers that stood in the way of this toleration in the Dutch colony. Just like Zwierlein he only looks at the origins of the general situation of the church in the Netherlands and its role in New Netherland. All three of the authors we have looked at focused too much on the general church situation to explain the alleged Dutch origins of religious toleration and did not take into account any factors such as commercialism, enlightenment thinking and diversity. In order to prove that more factors are at play when answering the question whether the Dutch had any influence on American
religious liberty through the colony of New Netherland, the next chapters will focus on these other themes. We will look first at the commercial contribution.
Chapter 2: Commercialism
Since the main reason for the Dutch to start a colony in America was trade, it is important to take into account this commercial aspect of the colony in this history of the colony’s religious influence on America.50 Therefore this chapter will entail the discussion of two arguments by scholars that focus on the commercial history of New Netherland, namely George Smith and Paul Finkelman. First we will look at Smith’s book that was published in 1973, Religion and
Trade in New Netherland. As the title of the book suggests, Smith tries to look at religion in
the colony in the light of the commercial beginnings of the colony. He argues that the
religious experience of New Netherland has a different aspect when looked at through the lens of the colony’s commercial aim.51 The main question that Smith poses is what this
commercialism meant for the relationship between the church and state in New Netherland from 1609 to 1664. According to Smith, church historians who focused on New Netherland’s religious experiences have neglected the commercial aspect of the colony. These historians assumed a central position of religion in New Netherland, basically copying ideas taken from the history of the English colonies, in which religion was of central importance. This is a mistaken assumption that led to misguided ideas, says Smith.52 Both the Dutch and the
English colonies were founded out of a mixture of economic and religious motivations, but their balance of the two was different. For the English the main aim of New England was religion; for the Dutch the main aim of New Netherland was trade. This is what makes the Dutch colony unique from all the colonies in Northeast America at this time, argues Smith.53
Starting a settlement of Dutch society in New Netherland was never an aim of the WIC directors. Actual colonization came about as a result of the need for more people to keep
50 Oliver Rink, Holland on the Hudson: an Economic and Social History of Dutch New York
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 35.
51 Smith, Religion and Trade in New Netherland, xi. 52 Ibid., 2.
the colony profitable. Because the colony was founded on commercial aims its commercial character formed a situation of religious pluralism. Thus pluralism was automatically
accompanied by toleration of multiple religions, states Smith. He further argues that religious pluralism and toleration were typical Dutch traits. These traits were the result of two
important Dutch circumstances; the struggle over religion with the Spanish and the commercial character of the Dutch empire.54 This shows that Smith also takes the Dutch
origins of religious struggle into account, but he does not solely focus on that factor. Smith discusses the work of Zwierlein and points out what the issue is with his argument: namely that he neglects the commercial aspect of the Dutch empire and New Netherland when looking at the religious situation. Smith agrees with Zwierlein that the policy of the colonial authorities was of influence on the situation, but he states that the economic needs of the commercial settlement were just as influential.55 Smith uses the same sources as Zwierlein: he looks at the same list of ordinances, but he comes to a different conclusion. He says that this conclusion is the result of a difference of emphasis; namely the meaning of these ordinances. He doubts whether all of them were taken as seriously as Zwierlein claims. In the Netherlands as well as in New Netherland, the Reformed church envisioned a religiously uniform society. However, the WIC directors, who had commercial aims in mind, preferred a moderate religious establishment with room for some dissent. They preferred the policy of connivance, as it was known in Amsterdam, says Smith. His conclusion is therefore fittingly called:
“Connivance, the Dutch Colonial Contribution to American Religious Pluralism.” This is how Smith comes to his conclusion that the Dutch colony formed a pluralist society with toleration for religious dissent, which would later on influence a United States constitutional provision for religious liberty.56
54 Smith, Religion and Trade in New Netherland, 12-14. 55 Ibid., 20.
Religion and Trade in New Netherland is a very well-written and well-organized book
in which Smith effectively substantiates his arguments. He spends the first half of the book looking at the relationship between religion and trade in the Dutch republic, in order to understand the relationship of the two in New Netherland. After establishing the Dutch origins of the colony, he zooms in on the actual situation in New Netherland. He focuses on the different viewpoints in the colony, namely those of the merchants and those of the clergy. By looking at the situation through multiple lenses he develops a broad perspective on New Netherland society’s interests and needs. He clearly shows how the desires of the church and the commercial needs clashed in the colony. Smith makes a strong argument by saying that even though religious uniformity was important, the commercial need for profit was just as important, if not more so. He successfully argues that the commercial character of the society led to religious pluralism, which created religious toleration. Smith thereby effectively combines the factor of Dutch origins and the commercial aim of the colony in his argument. However, there is always room for improvement. As Peter Onuf argues in his 1974 review of the book, the fear of the English encirclement might also have had an influence on the needs of the society. The English were settling all around the Dutch colony, which also motivated the Dutch need of a larger population. This motivation would correspond with the WIC’s aims. On the other hand, the same presence meant that the Reformed church felt the need of a religiously uniform society to stand strong against the Puritan English, argues Onuf.57 This shows that there were even more factors, outside of the Dutch origins and commercialism, which were of influence on the religious situation in New Netherland at the time.
Paul Finkelman does take this factor into account when looking at the Dutch role in the making of American religious liberty in his article “The Roots of Religious Freedom in Early America: Religious Toleration and Religious Diversity in New Netherland and Colonial
57 Peter Onuf, review of Religion and Trade in New Netherland, by George Smith, The Business History Review 48 (1974): 547.
New York.” How he does this will become clear later on. First we will look at Finkelman’s main questions, aims and arguments. Finkelman starts his article with a reference to the broader debate on America’s history of religious liberty. He states that religious freedom is one of the central principles in the constitution of the United States and that there are multiple sources for this religious freedom, among which are the ideas of John Locke, Roger Williams and those of the Quakers. In this article he wants to show that the Dutch also had influence on this religious freedom in the United States by looking at the history of New York. New York was different from the other founding states in that it did not have religious discrimination and an established church, says Finkelman. It thanks this to its Dutch predecessors in the Dutch colony of New Netherland. Just like previously discussed scholars he first zooms in on the history of Dutch toleration in Europe at the time of colonization, to find where the roots of this religious toleration lay. He claims that the Netherlands were different from all other European countries at the time, because all other countries held to the concept of cuius regio,
eius religio. This meant that the leader of the region decided what the local religion was.
These leaders found religious diversity too dangerous a threat to their rule, which made the Netherlands the most tolerant nation in Europe, says Finkelman.58
The reason for this toleration brings us back to the theme of this chapter:
commercialism. According to Finkelman, the commercial character of the Dutch society welcomed people into the country if they wanted to participate in the economy. He claims this commercial character was the basis for Dutch toleration. It was also this commercialism that brought the Dutch to North America; Finkelman calls New Netherland a “purely commercial venture.”59 In contrast to the English Puritans, the Dutch were not looking for religious freedom when they come to North America. They were not focused on settling a religious
58 Paul Finkelman, “The Roots of Religious Freedom in Early America: Religious Toleration
and Religious Diversity in New Netherland and Colonial New York,” Nanzan Review of
American Studies 34 (2012): 1-5. 59 Ibid., 6.
community. Just as Smith argued, Finkelman says that settlement was merely needed for economic success. He further says that the directors of the WIC hoped that New Netherland would be a harmonious society, but soon realized the importance of toleration for the economy to flourish. This is how the colony became cosmopolitan, by accepting people of different backgrounds and different religions to come and settle in the colony. Just like the other scholars, Finkelman discusses the quarrels between Stuyvesant and the Lutherans, Jews and Quakers. On top of that he also discusses the presence of the English Protestants who moved into the region. Where the previously discussed scholars do not take into account the pressure on the Dutch Reformed Church by the presence of the English Puritans, Finkelman does see this as a threat to the colony.60 They might not have challenged the established church, but they did make the presence of the surrounding Englishmen felt. This gave
Stuyvesant another reason to establish a strong religiously uniform society. Once the English took over the colony in 1664, these settlers welcomed them with open arms, according to Finkelman. After the English take over, there was no point to try and establish the Church of England in the region, because of the strong presence of the Dutch Reformed Church and other religious groups. Therefore the English had no choice but to keep up the form of religious toleration that was already present, claims Finkelman. They understood the Dutch belief that prosperity through diversity was more important in the colony than the
establishment of the church. This brings him to his conclusion that the region of New York would continue to be shaped by pluralism and religious toleration, up to the Revolution and thereafter.61
Unfortunately, Finkelman’s article does not offer a clear thesis statement, nor a clear conclusion. His article is more descriptive than it is analytical; it offers a good overview of the Dutch influence on American religious liberty, but does not clearly argue anything. He
60 Finkelman, “The Roots of Religious Freedom in Early America,” 7-9. 61 Ibid., 23-25.
also does not define what he thinks toleration entails. As he says himself, the article “explores” the Dutch experience in New Netherland and early English New York. Nonetheless, the main thesis that can be derived from the narrative is that commercialism lies at the base of Dutch toleration, in both the homeland and the colony. It was this commercialism, according to Finkelman, that led to the diversity that undermined the Dutch Reformed Church and
established religious toleration in New Netherland. This toleration survived under the English rule and found its way into the future United States. Finkelman thereby successfully combines multiple factors of influence that we have discussed before, namely the Dutch origins of toleration; the commercial character that was the incentive for it; the consequential diversity, which includes the presence of the English; and the eventual take-over by the English. Another topic that Finkelman mentions shortly in the very beginning of his article are the other forms of influence, aside from the Dutch, like the thoughts and ideas of John Locke. In the following chapters the influence of this enlightenment thinking and the influence of
diversity in the region will be discussed further. By mentioning these other forms of influence, Finkelman positions his article in the broader debate on American religious liberty. His aim within this debate is to prove that the Dutch also had a role in bringing toleration to America through the colony of New Netherland. It can be concluded that Finkelman wrote an effective narrative in which he includes all the main factors of Dutch influence on American religious liberty.
As this chapter has shown, commercialism is one of the most important factors in the discussion about the Dutch influence on American religious liberty, since it was the main reason for the Dutch to come to America. Smith showed us a convincing argument, namely that pluralism arose in the colony as a result to commercialism, which consequently led to religious toleration. He defines this toleration as connivance, merely the acceptance of religious dissent. Smith successfully combined the factor of Dutch origins and the factor of
commercialism in his argument, but he did not discuss the presence of the English or enlightenment thinking. Even though Finkelman did not pose a clear thesis in his article, he did very effectively combine all factors we have discussed so far: the Dutch origins,
commercialism, enlightenment thinking and the English presence. This subject of enlightenment thinking that Finkelman touched upon lightly will now be discussed thoroughly in the next chapter: thoughts and ideas.
Chapter 3: Thoughts and ideas
Apart from its famous tolerance, Holland was also a breeding ground for enlightenment thinking. Great thinkers such as Descartes and John Locke found their way to Holland, mainly because of this well-known tolerance.62 The scholars whose work we will discuss now are of the opinion that it was this Dutch enlightened thinking that influenced America’s religious liberty, more so than any other previously discussed factors. In 2004 Russell Shorto published his book called The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan
and the Forgotten Colony that Shaped America, which would have great popular success.
With this book Shorto wants to put New Netherland back on the map, so to say, when it comes to the history of New York and America in general. Historians of American history have often neglected the Dutch history of New York and its influence on the future United States. In the 1970s two things happened that sparked new attention for the subject, says Shorto. First of all, social history became more popular and there was a sudden interest in multiculturalism. Second, the records of the Dutch colony that could be sources for research on its history were finally starting to be translated.63 However, Shorto is still of the opinion that the Dutch history of New York is under-acknowledged and therefore writes this book to prove that the Dutch belong in America’s history.64 He hereby wants to celebrate the
multiculturalist background of nowadays New York. He argues that toleration was a very important factor that came about in New Netherland and influenced New York greatly. Within this argument he makes room for Adriaen van der Donck, a figure who has often been overlooked in the discussions about the history of the Dutch colony. In order to prove his
62 Jonathan I. Israel, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752 (Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2006), 374.
63 Danny Hakim, “His specialty? Making Old New York Talk in Dutch,” New York Times,
Dec. 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/nyregion/27dutch.html
statements, Shorto first looks at the history of Dutch toleration in the homeland. He then follows Van der Donck’s path to New Netherland and discusses the situation in the colony.
Shorto accepts the thesis that Holland had a form of religious toleration during the seventeenth century, which laid a very important base for European enlightenment thinking.65 He describes tolerance as the relative acceptance of foreignness, of religious differences. He thus mistakenly uses the term tolerance instead of toleration, which has been altered here to avoid further confusion. According to Shorto, the Dutch always had to put up with differences, thanks to their commercial character. So he claims that the commercial aim was the incentive for toleration. This Dutch toleration made it a haven for all kinds of people, including people such as Descartes and John Locke. This toleration was officially written down in the
constitution in 1579, after the bloody religious persecution by the Spanish. Shorto says it shaped the societies of both the Dutch Republic and its colony New Netherland. The
Manhattan colony had all the Dutch features of toleration, openness and free trade, according to Shorto. He says that it were those features that influenced New York and thereby
America.66 However, Shorto is of the opinion that the idea of New Netherland as the “cradle of religious liberty” has its flaws. He does not call it completely wrong, but he says that the colony was not perfectly tolerant either. “The blanket of tolerance got a bit tattered on the transatlantic voyage,” says Shorto when he describes the rule of Stuyvesant and his predecessors thoroughly.67 He claims that it was Adriaen van der Donck who had a big, maybe the biggest, influence on the situation in New Netherland at the time. Van der Donck came to the colony in 1641 as the “schout” for Rensselaerswyck, after having just graduated from the prestigious Leiden University. Shorto says Van der Donck was imbued with enlightened ideas about democracy and toleration, since many influential thinkers such as
65 Russell Shorto and Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs, “Response and Rebuttal,” Church History
80 (2011): 140.
66 Shorto, The Island at the Center of the World, 17. 67 Ibid., 253.
Descartes were at the university during his time.68 After serving in Rensselaerswyck, he made
his way to New Amsterdam and started influencing the directors and other authorities with his ideas on law and governmental issues. Shorto hereby argues that Van der Donck brought enlightened ideas along to America, which would later on influence American religious liberty. Shorto also discusses the Flushing Remonstrance as an example of Dutch thinking that made its way to America. He says that the Remonstrance is considered “one of the foundational documents of American liberty, ancestor to the first amendment in the Bill of Rights,” which guarantees religious freedom in the United States. He then states that the Flushing Remonstrance is clearly based on the guarantee of religious freedom written down in the Dutch constitution, thereby stating that this Dutch idea had an indirect influence on the first amendment and thus on American religious liberty.
As I indicated earlier, Russell Shorto does not claim that the policy of Stuyvesant in New Netherland was religiously tolerant. He argues that it were Dutch enlightened ideas that made their way to America through figures such as Adriaen van der Donck and through documents such as the Flushing Remonstrance that influenced American religious liberty. He thereby raises an interesting new form of influence to be considered, namely Dutch
enlightened thoughts and ideas. Shorto argues that it was the Dutch toleration that created the breeding ground for this enlightenment thinking, thereby considering Dutch toleration as a factor of influence also. However, he does not fully take into account the other factors we have discussed, namely the commercial aspect of the colony and the pressing presence of the English. As for his book, The Island at the Center of the World is a well written, intriguing history of the colony of New Netherland. However, as Paul Otto critiques in his 2005 review on the book, Shorto’s book is an “animated narrative” that does not come across as a
professional research.69 Given that Shorto is a journalist and not an actual historian, this is
understandable. Nonetheless, this narrative form gives the book a commercial feel, rather than academic. Another good argument that Otto poses is that Shorto is preoccupied with the role of Adriaen van der Donck. Shorto is right that Van der Donck is often overlooked by
historians of New Netherland, but the role that he ascribes to the young man as a bringer of Dutch enlightened ideas is taking it too far. The biggest critique that Shorto got on his book, written by Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs, critiques this argument further. J.D. Bangs is therefore the next author whom we will discuss.
J.D. Bangs’ article “Dutch Contributions to Religious Toleration” appeared in Church
History in 2010. This article is essentially an attack on Russell Shorto’s An Island at the Center of the World. Bangs, an American who got his doctorate at Leiden University in 1972,
is of the opinion that Shorto’s claims concerning the Dutch contribution to American religious liberty are wrong and even calls his work “journalistic jingoism.” He argues that his “fabled Dutch tradition of toleration” needs revising. According to him the Dutch ideas did make their way to American discussion on religious freedom, but not through the colony of New
Netherland.70 He first focuses on debunking Shorto’s argument concerning the influence of
Adriaen van der Donck before turning to the question of toleration and religious freedom in New Amsterdam. The assumption that Van der Donck was imbued with enlightened ideas about toleration is completely wrong according to Bangs. Van der Donck has written quite a lot during his time in North America, but in none of his writings does he express any interest for religious toleration. Not only does he not write on the topic, he also did not argue for toleration in the colony according to the colony records. Hereby Bangs dismisses the idea that
69 Paul Otto, review of The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch
Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony that Shaped America, by Russell Shorto, The Journal of American History 92 (2005): 183.
70 Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs, “Dutch Contributions to Religious Toleration,” Church History
Van der Donck is the source of religious toleration in the Dutch colony that would later on influence American religious liberty.71 When examining whether or not New Amsterdam was tolerant, Bangs looks at the work of Jaap Jacobs, which we have previously discussed. He agrees with Jacobs that the directors of the WIC were responsible for certain tolerant decisions concerning religious dissenters in New Netherland and that therefore those
decisions are no evidence of exceptional tolerance in the colony.72 He then calls the situation
in New Netherland “sophistry bordering on hypocrisy.”73 The supposedly tolerant colony allowed anyone outside of the Dutch reformed religion to live there as long as they did not worship outside of their homes, married publicly, held burial ceremonies according to their traditions, or acted on any of their beliefs in public. Basically, people could believe whatever they wanted, as long as they stayed silent about it, says Bangs. Therefore he concludes that the situation in New Netherland was hardly freedom of religion.74
Bangs also questions Shorto’s argument that the Flushing Remonstrance was a causative forerunner of the Bill of Rights. He states that since the colony did not have religious toleration the remonstrance was denied by the director and consequently forgotten about. This means it could not have influenced eighteenth-century tolerant thinking that led to the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed religious freedom in the United States. How the
remonstrance came about in the first place also had nothing to do with religious toleration in New Netherland, says Bangs. Most of the petitioners were English settlers in the Dutch town of Flushing, who had been accepted there by the colonial government since their reformed beliefs were very close to the Dutch reformed religion. When they wrote the remonstrance to support their Quaker neighbors they did so based on Dutch ideas of toleration, which had become popular among Englishmen both in England and America. When stating “Dutch ideas”
71 Bangs, “Dutch Contributions to Religious Toleration,” 587-588. 72 Jacobs, New Netherland, 379.
73 Bangs, “Dutch Contributions to Religious Toleration,” 590. 74 Ibid., 589-590.
